4.6 Article

The TNF-α, IL-1B and IL-10 polymorphisms and risk for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-010-0959-8

关键词

Meta-analysis; Polymorphism; TNF-alpha; Interleukin; Hepatocellular carcinoma

类别

资金

  1. Harbin Special Funds for Research of Scientific and Technological Innovative Talents [RC2011QN004139]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

TNF-alpha-308 G/A, TNF-alpha-238 G/A, IL-1B-31 T/C, IL-1B-511 C/T, and IL-10-1082 G/A polymorphisms have been reported to influence the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in many studies; however, the results still remains controversial and ambiguous. The aim of this study was to determine more precise estimations for the relationship between TNF-alpha, IL-1B, and IL-10 polymorphisms and the risk for HCC by meta-analysis. Electronic searches for all publications were conducted on associations between these variants and HCC in several databases through September 2010. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated to estimate the strength of this association in a random-effect model. Twenty studies were identified, involving 2,763 HCC patients and 4,152 controls. This meta-analysis showed significant association between TNF-alpha-308 polymorphism and HCC (AA + GA vs. GG: OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.12-2.72). In Caucasian and Asian subgroups, OR values (95% CI) were 1.49 (0.58-3.82) and 1.84 (1.06-3.20), respectively. While the ORs for TNF-alpha-238 G/A, IL-1B-31 T/C, -511 C/T and IL-10-1082 G/A polymorphisms and HCC were 1.37 (0.95-2.00), 1.24 (0.99-1.55), 1.12 (0.66-1.88) and 0.91 (0.74-1.12), respectively. The sensitivity analysis further strengthened the overall strong positive correlations. No publication bias was observed in this study. TNF-alpha-308 G/A polymorphism is assumed to confer a higher risk for HCC, especially in Asian population. TNF-alpha-238 G/A, IL-1B-31 T/C, -511 C/T, and IL-10-1082 G/A polymorphisms were not detected to be related to the risk for HCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据